Joyrider found guilty after headbutting TD during row

Heinrich

This chap was banned from driving and gets into this fracas. The he claims that his head may have unintentionally hit the TD's head! The judge remands him on bail to see if he can do 240 hours community service. This is surely a mockery of justice.

The guy was banned from driving for five years a year ago so what use id the ban in the first place?

A TD was headbutted by a repeat driving offender who the politician had remonstrated with for doing "wheel spins" in a residential area, a court heard yesterday.

Sinn Fein's Aengus Ó Snodaigh managed to throw his attacker, Mark Moran (23), into a garden hedge in an effort to defend himself before gardai arrived.

Moran, who has 32 previous convictions (mostly for car-related crime), had been doing 360 degree handbrake turns near Mr Ó Snodaigh's home in Ballyfermot, Dublin.

Moran, a tyre-fitter from Cremona Road, Ballyfermot, was at the time under a five-year ban for a previous uninsured driving offence.

He denied assaulting Mr Ó Snodaigh but said his head may have unintentionally hit the TD's head during a scuffle between the two of them.

Dublin District Court heard Mr Ó Snodaigh had been returning from a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis on March 6 last year when he had to swerve to avoid two cars which were racing each other up his street.

Mr Ó Snodaigh said incidents like this and "joyriding" occurred regularly in the area but it usually happened at night and not in daylight when there were children around, as was the case on this evening.

He tried to speak to the driver of one of the cars but it sped away. He rang the gardai about it.

A short time later, Mr Ó Snodaigh was buying ice-cream for his children from a van parked near his house when he saw a car driven by Moran doing wheel spins in the street. He tried to speak to Moran, who told him to "f--- off, you and your IRA mates, I'm not afraid of you".

Mr Ó Snodaigh said Moran then got out and headbutted him. He managed to grab Moran and throw him over a nearby garden wall into a thorn bush.

At that point, Mr Ó Snodaigh's son said the gardai were coming and Mr Moran jumped back into his car and sped off.

Gardai followed the car and after stopping it, Moran gave his brother's name.

The ice-cream van driver told the court he saw Mr Ó Snodaigh being headbutted but did not see anything else because he was telling Moran's passenger to keep out of it.

Moran told the court he had had a couple of drinks earlier because it was Mother's Day.

He claimed Mr Ó Snodaigh "was fairly intoxicated and using threatening and abusive behaviour".

"I do admit at some point my head hit off his face but not intentionally," he said.

Judge Ann Ryan found him guilty and said he must realise, as the father of a young child, the danger his driving was posing to children in the area.

She remanded him on bail to January 26 to see if he is suitable for 240 hours community service.

The court heard Moran had been given a five-year driving ban and a three-month jail sentence a year ago for uninsured driving.

seamus

That's ridiculous. Do judges not have to justify their judgements? As someone said in another thread, this guy should not be out of prison long enough to be able to rack up 32 previous convictions.

Now he's laughing, he's gotten away with community service. He's probably out driving down to the pub now with his scumbag mates.

(Going to move this to After Hours btw unless you have a specific legal question about it?)

DublinWriter

Head-butting a shinner...dear oh dear...there's one lad who'll be browsing the "Kneecaps 'r' Us" catalogue this Christmas with the dilema over whether to opt for either 'swivel' or 'joint' based-options.

Our man in Havana

DublinWriter wrote:

Head-butting a shinner...dear oh dear...there's one lad who'll be browsing the "Kneecaps 'r' Us" catalogue this Christmas with the dilema over whether to opt for either 'swivel' or 'joint' based-options.

Indeedy

Liam Byrne

this guy should not be out of prison long enough to be able to rack up 32 previous convictions

Are you talking about the joyrider or the TD ?

joebhoy1916

seamus wrote:

Now he's laughing, he's gotten away with community service. He's probably out driving down to the pub now with his scumbag mates.

Emm I wouldn't say he has got away with it :rolleyes:

His mammy and daddy would also be getting a visit I would say.

Liam im sure if it was Micheal McDowell you wouldn't be saying that. Sticking up for joyriders?

Dublin if you bothered to read the first post it happened March 6 last year nothnig gonna happen now though im sure someone had a word. Though young local supporters might do something.

Oh I can see the headlines the IRA out in force in Ballyfermot setting up road blocks looking for this man then if he did get beaten Skybreaking news the IRA are no longer on ceasefire ah sure what harm what's another 5 years waiting for Stormont to get up and running.

county

Liam Byrne wrote:

Are you talking about the joyrider or the TD ?

there was only one way this thread was going to go,funny reply though:)

DublinWriter

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Dublin if you bothered to read the first post it happened March 6 last year nothnig gonna happen now though im sure someone had a word.

Apologies - I didn't realise that you knew P.O'Neill personally.

joebhoy1916

DublinWriter wrote:

Apologies - I didn't realise that you knew P.O'Neill personally.

Well you seem to believe things the british say so here it is who they think it is wow it's Denis Donalsson isnt he dead?

You do know that person just makes the statement?

So really dont know why your bringing P O Neill up.

DublinWriter

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Well you seem to believe things the british say so here it is who they think it is wow it's Denis Donalsson isnt he dead?

I would reply, but that's just not a sentance, on many levels.

padser

seamus wrote:

(Going to move this to After Hours btw unless you have a specific legal question about it?)

Although the forum charter is not specific on the issue, I was not I aware that there had to be a legal question for a question to fall into the realm of 'legal discussion'. I was under the impression that it only needed to be 'discussion' of a 'legal' topic. Hence the forum name 'legal discussion'.

Certainly when the forum was being proposed and discussed in the 'forums' forum this was the general idea behind the forum.

I would have a thread talking about a sentence being imposed upon someone being a 'mockery of justice' would be classed as a 'legal discussion'?

OP: Yes it does seem like a very light sentence. However I think you will find that is in line with sentences given for similar crimes. Personally I like to simply look at the fact someone has a extensive list of previous convictions, and lock them up and through away the key.....unfortunatly......im not in charge.

Also it should be noted that 32 convictions doesnt mean 32 crimes, one crime can result in multiple convictions.

seamus

padser wrote:

Although the forum charter is not specific on the issue, I was not I aware that there had to be a legal question for a question to fall into the realm of 'legal discussion'. I was under the impression that it only needed to be 'discussion' of a 'legal' topic. Hence the forum name 'legal discussion'.

Well, my view on it is that without a specific question being posed by the OP, then there's not really much to discuss legally...

padser

Heinrich wrote:

This is surely a mockery of justice.

No direct question or question mark, but suggesting that something is a mockery of justice could be said to be inviting a legal disscussion on the merits of the case

Heinrich wrote:

The guy was banned from driving for five years a year ago so what use id the ban in the first place?

Bad grammar aside, he appears to be asking what was the point of banning the man from driving for 5 years, if he is back driving again a year later.



You see, only in the legal disscussion forum could you have an argument, on whether or not a question has actually been asked.....well maybe in philosphie....but I cant spell that.....

Heinrich

padser wrote:

No direct question or question mark, but suggesting that something is a mockery of justice could be said to be inviting a legal disscussion on the merits of the case



Bad grammar aside, he appears to be asking what was the point of banning the man from driving for 5 years, if he is back driving again a year later.



You see, only in the legal disscussion forum could you have an argument, on whether or not a question has actually been asked.....well maybe in philosphie....but I cant spell that.....

Nitpicking for bad grammar and punctuation marks is really being silly.

Must remember to rephrase and use question marks the next time.

Question I should have asked is "is this a mockery...?" or "do the readers think this is...?

The thread should now be locked before more nonsense is added.

Just My View

padser wrote:

Also it should be noted that 32 convictions doesnt mean 32 crimes, one crime can result in multiple convictions.

True. But then again what are he odds that he was convicted for every offence he comitted? That would be massive work on the part of the Gardaí, wouldn't it. 100% detection followed by 100% conviction.

padser

Heinrich wrote:

Nitpicking for bad grammar and punctuation marks is really being silly.

.

True, sorry.

Just My View wrote:

100% detection followed by 100% conviction
.

Yeah, I was going to put that into my post, but couldnt come up with a catchy punchline for it like that.

Unfortunatly (and I do mean unfortunatly) the courts are generally bound only to take crimes into account that an individual has actually been convicted for when sentencing him. I actaully think a far more effective system would be to say
'Well we caught you joyriding/assaulting/stealing once, we are pretty sure this means there are 10 times you didnt do it....so we will sentence you for those ones as well'
:rolleyes: